[bubblyworld]

I think it's pretty clear that they suspect the mechanism underlying the model's output is the same as the mechanism underlying said theoretical principles, not that the AI was literally manipulating the concepts in some abstract sense.

I don't really get your rabid dismissal. Why does it matter that they are using optimisation models and not LLMs? Nobody in the article is claiming to have used LLMs. In fact the only mention of it is lower down where someone says they hope it will lead to advances in automatic hypothesis generation. Like, fair enough?

[LeroyRaz]

They write the "AI was probably using some esoteric theoretical principles." That is a direct quote of the article.

If it was an LLM based model this could be a correct statement, and it would suggest a groundbreaking achievement: the AI collated esoteric research, interpreting it correctly and used that conceptual understanding to suggest a novel experiment. This might sound far fetched, but we already have LLM based systems doing similar... Their written statement is plausible given the current state of hype (and also a plausible, though ground breaking, given the current state of research).

In reality, the statement is incorrect. The models did not 'use' any concepts (and the only way to know that the article is wrong is to actually bother to consult the original paper, which I did).

The distinction matters: they implied something ground breaking, when the reality is cool, but by no means unprecedented.

Tldr: using concepts is not something classic ML algorithms do. They thus directly erroneously imply (a groundbreaking) foundation model based (or similar) approach. I care because I don't like people being mislead.

[bubblyworld]

I think you're taking the statement way too literally. It's very clear to me what they are trying to communicate there - sure, you can read all sorts of things into a sentence like that if you try, but let's assume the best in people when there are unknowns, not the worst?

Again, the authors never said anything about language models. That's entirely on you.

[LeroyRaz]

What makes it clear to you that they don't mean what they explicitly write? What are you defending and why?

Philosophical discussions aside, it is entirely possible for current AI to use concepts (but the research they are describing does not employ that kind of AI).

I also think most lay people seeing the term AI are likely to think of something like ChatGPT.

It is a) literally incorrect what they write, and b) highly misleading to a lay person (who will likely think of something like ChatGPT when they read the term AI). Why are you defending their poor writing?

[bubblyworld]

> What makes it clear to you that they don't mean what they explicitly write?

Because that's how language works - it's inherently ambiguous, and we interpret things in the way that makes the most sense to us. Your interpretation makes no sense to me, and requires a whole host of assumptions that aren't present in the article at all (and are otherwise very unlikely, like an AI that can literally work at the level of concepts).

> Why are you defending their poor writing?

I'm defending them because I don't think it's poor writing.

[LeroyRaz]

There are two ways to interpret the sentence we are discussing:

A: a grammatically incorrect statement, saying that "the AI used theory", when they mean that "the AI's design can be understood using theory" (or more sloppy "that the design uses the theory").

B: a grammatically valid if contentious-to-you statement about an LLM or knowledge graph based system (e.g., something like the AI Scientist paper) parsing theory and that parsing being used to create the experiment design.

As I have explained, B is a perfectly valid interpretation, given the current state of the art. It is also valid historically, as knowledge graph based systems have been around for a long time. It is also the likely interpretation of a lay person, who is mainly exposed to hype and AI systems like chatGPT.

Regardless, they a) introduce needless ambiguity that is likely to mislead a large proportion of readers. And b) if they are not actively misleading then they have written something grammatically incorrect.

Both findings mean that the article is a sloppy and bad piece of writing.

This particular sentence is also only a particular example of how the article is likely to mislead.

[bubblyworld]

Okay - at this point I have nothing more to say. You think I'm misrepresenting Quanta's audience, and I think you're being needlessly pedantic. Doesn't seem like we're going to resolve this short of you "showing me the victim", so to speak. It didn't mislead me, it didn't mislead my partner, and it doesn't seem to have mislead you either. So who are these "laypeople" who are injecting all this hidden meaning into the article?

Anyway, I don't think it's reasonable for me to ask you for evidence here, so let's just agree to disagree.